Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee …102]Corporate social... · Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction Christopher W. Baumana,*,

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Research in Organizational Behavior 32 (2012) 63–86

Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction

Christopher W. Bauman a,*, Linda J. Skitka b

a University of California, Irvine, United Statesb University of Illinois at Chicago, United States

Available online 20 November 2012

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility has received an increasing amount of attention from practitioners and scholars alike in recent

years. However, very little is known about whether or how corporate social responsibility affects employees. Because employees are

primary stakeholders who directly contribute to the success of the company, understanding employee reactions to corporate social

responsibility may help answer lingering questions about the potential effects of corporate social responsibility on firms as well as

illuminate some of the processes responsible for them. To begin our chapter, we provide a brief history of scholarship on corporate

social responsibility and highlight some of the major challenges researchers in this area currently face. We then discuss why

corporate social responsibility may represent a special opportunity to influence employees’ general impression of their company.

Next, we identify four distinct paths through which corporate social responsibility may affect employees’ relationship with their

company that correspond to four universal psychological needs: security, self-esteem, belongingness, and a meaningful existence.

Finally, we offer an agenda for micro-level research on corporate social responsibility.

# 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Corporate social responsibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

2. Employee perceptions of organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

2.1. Corporations are people-like . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

2.2. Perceived corporate morality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

2.3. Evaluating complex actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

3. CSR and employee needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.1. Need for security and safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.2. Need for esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.2.1. Intergroup distinctiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

3.2.2. Belongingness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

3.3. Need for a meaningful existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

4. An agenda for micro-level research on CSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

4.1. Safety and security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

4.2. Group distinctiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

4.3. Belongingness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4.4. Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.W. Bauman), [email protected] (L.J. Skitka).

0191-3085/$ – see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.002

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01913085


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


C.W. Bauman, L.J. Skitka / Research in Organizational Behavior 32 (2012) 63–8664

5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

No one likes rain on their parade. Not even in Seattle. For eight years, Washington Mutual Bank sponsored Seattle’s

annual ‘‘Family 4th at Lake Union’’ fireworks show on Independence Day. The financial giant folded in 2008 due to its

extensive involvement in high-risk loans when subprime mortgage crisis hit, creating the largest bank failure in American

history and leaving Seattle’s summer ritual without a sponsor. JPMorgan Chase, the company that bought what was left of

WaMu after its collapse, agreed to sponsor the fireworks for one year, but it chose not to extend the commitment into the

future. No other corporate sponsor came forward, and the nonprofit organization that planned to produce the event in 2010

had no other choice but to cancel it. When news of the cancelation broke, local celebrity chef and restaurateur Tom

Douglas and radio host Dave Ross launched a fundraising campaign to save the show. Douglas started a fund by donating

some of the money required, and he called on individuals and corporations to chip in as well. Within 24 h, Starbucks,

Microsoft, and about 300 other individual and corporate donors had pledged enough money to light the sky according to

tradition. Residents of the city and the surrounding areas were relieved that the show would go on, but they also seemed to

revel in the cooperative spirit and sense of community the combined sponsorship represented. Clearly, the public was

pleased about the outcome, but do community-minded actions like these have any special effect on the way employees at

Starbucks, Microsoft, and Douglas’ restaurants feel about their company and do their job?

People try to understand others by making inferences about actors’ underlying traits and stable tendencies based on

observable behaviors (e.g., Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965). Most people would probably argue that Tom

Douglas’s voluntary contribution to a community event like the Family 4th at Lake Union conveys information about

his values and sends a qualitatively different message about who he is than does his entrepreneurial success

(Rosenberg, Nelson, & Vivekananthan, 1968; Trafimow & Trafimow, 1999; Wojciszke, 1994; Wojciszke, Bazinska, &

Jaworski, 1998). That is, Douglas’ capacity to create a local empire of popular restaurants says more about his talents

and skills than about his social orientation or moral character, whereas an unsolicited effort to serve the interests of the

community says more about his character than his skill. These two dimensions of appraisal, competence/agency/

ability and warmth/communion/morality, represent a basic framework people use to understand others (e.g., Abele &

Wojciszke, 2007; Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011; Reeder & Brewer, 1979; Rosenberg & Sedlak, 1972; Wojciszke,

1994). Information about warmth/communion/morality is particularly influential in global evaluations of others

because it provides insight into their important and enduring beliefs (Rokeach, 1979; cf. Katz & Kahn, 1978) and

indicates whether they are trustworthy and cooperative (e.g., Wojciszke & Abele, 2008; Wojciszke et al., 1998; cf.

Peeters, 1983).

People employ the same psychological processes they use to appraise individuals when evaluating organizations

(e.g., Davies, Chun, Da Silva & Roper, 2003; Dowling, 2001; Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007). Because people often

conceptualize companies as social actors with traits, motives, and intentions, they are likely to evaluate organizational

character in terms of both ability and morality (Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007; Lichtenstein, Drumwright, & Braig,

2004; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Sen, Battacharya, & Korschun, 2006). Corporate

contributions to the community, such as donations to the Family 4th at Lake Union, may therefore influence people’s

evaluations of Starbucks and Microsoft in much the same way they influence people’s evaluations of Tom Douglas.

Given that moral similarity or dissimilarity uniquely impacts people’s willingness to enter relationships with groups

and individuals (Haidt, Rosenberg, & Hom, 2003; Leach et al., 2007; Skitka, Bauman, & Sargis, 2005), maintaining a

moral image should be of interest to individuals and organizations alike. That said, there are many factors that affect

whether and how people infer the morality of an actor based on a specific behavior, and this link may be especially

variable when the target is a corporation rather than an individual.

We propose that actions that demonstrate corporate social responsibility represent a fairly rare opportunity to

positively influence how individuals—especially employees and prospective employees—perceive firms. In

particular, discretionary activities that indicate a prosocial rather than an instrumental orientation have the potential to

elicit attributions of morality, which can strengthen the social ties between individuals and the organization. As a

result, acts of corporate social responsibility should, for example, increase identification and commitment to the

organization, organizational citizenship behaviors, and meaningfulness of work (e.g., Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, &

Ganapathi, 2007; Bartel, 2001; Ellemers, Kingma, van de Burgt, & Barreto, 2011; Fombrun, Gardberg, & Barnett,

C.W. Bauman, L.J. Skitka / Research in Organizational Behavior 32 (2012) 63–86 65

2000; Peterson, 2004; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008; Swaen & Maignan, 2003). Corporate social responsibility should also

enhance firms’ ability to attract and keep top talent (e.g., Albinger & Freeman, 2000; Greening & Turban, 2000;

Turban & Greening, 1997). Although it is not new to suggest that CSR can have a positive impact on employees’ view

of their employer, very little work has attempted to explain how CSR affects employees and why CSR is likely to play

a special role in employees’ relationships with the firm.

We identify four psychological routes through which CSR can impact employees’ relationships with their company.

Specifically, we outline how CSR can (a) reassure concerns about safety and security, (b) provide positive

distinctiveness and enhance social identity, (c) symbolize commitment to important values and engender a sense of

belongingness, and (d) add meaning and provide a greater sense of purpose at work. Before turning to the

psychological routes that explain how CSR activities affect employees’ impressions of the firm, we first provide a brief

description of the concept of corporate social responsibility.

1. Corporate social responsibility

It is widely accepted that businesses exist to make money for investors. But should firms voluntarily perform

additional functions that benefit other members of society? Scholarship on corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a

broad area of inquiry that attempts to answer this fundamental question. It generally addresses the proper relation

between business and society and the extent to which firms have responsibilities beyond the pursuit of their economic

self-interest and compliance with the law (Carroll, 1979; Jones, 1980; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; see also Davis,

1973; Stone, 1975). The field has yet to come to consensus on a more precise definition of CSR, which has led to a

somewhat confusing array of conceptualizations and operationalizations that partially diverge from each other and

overlap at times with a number of other closely related constructs (Aguilera et al., 2007; Aguinis & Glavas, 2012;

Carroll, 1999; Waddock, 2004). We believe, however, that Aguinis (2011) concisely captured several key elements of

CSR when he defined it as ‘‘context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’

expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance’’ (p. 855). We therefore

use Aguinis’s definition of CSR as the starting point of our inquiry.

Scholarly interest in CSR from a management perspective can be traced back at least as far as the 1930s, and the

topic has been particularly contentious and ideologically charged from the start (Carroll, 1999). A major source of

disagreement concerns whether and how far beyond ‘‘the bottom line’’ firms should go. Proponents of a narrow

economic view of CSR maintain that firms are socially responsible to the extent that they maximize profits while

complying with the letter of the law (e.g., Easterbrook & Fischel, 1996; Friedman, 1962; Leavitt, 1958; Sternberg,

1996, 2000). From this perspective, businesses achieve social responsibility through profitability because profitable

firms deliver the returns that investors seek, provide paychecks that employees need, and supply the goods and

services consumers want. By definition, economic exchange is socially desirable in a free market system because it

would not occur voluntarily if it did not make both parties to the exchange better off (cf. Smith, 1909, 1976).

Moreover, expenditures toward ends other than profitability could introduce inefficiencies into the market that in

turn would decrease overall social benefit (Friedman, 1962; Friedman & Friedman, 1980). Requiring companies to

pursue social objectives other than profitability also decreases the overall amount of personal freedom in society,

because it impinges on shareholders’ right to invest their money in whatever ways they wish (Friedman, 1962).

Taken together, these arguments lead some to conclude that the sole social responsibility of business is to increase

profits (Friedman, 1970).

Proponents of a more expansive view on CSR, in contrast, contend that businesses ought to use their power and

resources for ‘‘broad social ends and not simply for the narrowly circumscribed interests of private persons and firms’’

(Frederick, 1960, p. 60; see also Davis, 1960; McGuire, 1963). Socially responsible firms should first achieve their

economic goals and fulfill their legal obligations. However, they also should adhere to ethical standards not mandated

by law and engage in some philanthropic or other discretionary activities that help address the needs of society (e.g.,

Carroll, 1979; Wartick & Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991). According to this perspective, society has a right to require

responsibilities that are not a part of the narrow economic view because it licenses businesses to operate and absorbs

the negative externalities businesses generate (Jones, 1980). Also, corporations and the individuals who run them have

no special status that absolves them from the ethical obligations and civic duties that are required of other members of

society (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Logsdon & Wood, 2002; Quinn & Jones, 1995). Therefore, some conclude that

businesses must consider the needs and desires of society at large and do more than simply maximize profit.


Despite these unresolved differences over normative aspects of CSR, the amount of resources companies put

toward CSR increased dramatically over the past several decades. A new era of CSR began in the United States in 1953

when the New Jersey Supreme Court lifted legal restrictions on corporate philanthropy and explicitly endorsed CSR

(A. P. Smith Mfg. Co. v. Barlow). Companies moved quickly to adapt to the apparent shift in society’s expectations for

businesses. Most large companies established programs for philanthropy and developed explicit codes of ethics by the

end of the 1980s (Business Roundtable, 1988; Smith, 1994). As of 2004, over 80% of Fortune 500 companies

explicitly touted multiple aspects of CSR on their websites (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). In other words, CSR has

become a mainstream concern, and many companies now question how rather than whether they should address it

(Smith, 2003).

Efforts to document and understand the antecedents and consequences of CSR for firms have been a major focus of

research in recent years (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Margolis & Walsh, 2001; Peloza & Shang, 2011). The body of

empirical evidence indicates that CSR is positively associated with firm reputation and financial performance (e.g.,

Margolis & Walsh, 2001, 2003; Orlitzky & Benjamin, 2001; Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003; Peloza, 2009), which

has led many in the field to endorse the notion that CSR benefits firms. However, some researchers urge caution

because existing studies have several methodological limitations; for example, large companies are overrepresented in

study samples, key control variables are missing from some analyses, there is uncertainty about how well existing

measures operationalize key constructs, and nearly all studies are correlational and unable to determine whether CSR

improves financial performance or vice versa (e.g., Griffin & Mahon, 1997; Margolis & Walsh, 2003; McGuire,

Sundgren, & Schneeweis, 1988; Peloza, 2009; Ullmann, 1985; Waddock & Graves, 1997). Moreover, others have

called for more precise theoretical accounts of the relation between CSR and financial performance to clarify the

processes involved and identify important moderating conditions (Aguilera et al., 2007; Aguinis & Glavas, 2012;

Rowley & Berman, 2000; Wood, 2010; Wood & Jones, 1995). Existing theories and data do not therefore provide

unequivocal answers to some crucial questions about CSR.

One underutilized approach to understanding some of the potential costs and benefits of CSR to firms is to

investigate the impact of CSR on employees. Research often addresses how CSR affects important stakeholder groups,

especially investors (e.g., Graves & Waddock, 1994) and consumers (e.g., Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), but it has tended

to neglect employees (Aguilera et al., 2007; Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). This gap in knowledge is surprising given how

well established it is that employee attitudes and behavior have far reaching consequences for the overall success of

organizations (e.g., Chambers, Foulon, Handfield-Jones, Hankin, & Michaels, 1998, Lawler, 1992; Mathieu & Zajac,

1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982; Pfeffer, 1994). If CSR can, for example, attract talent,

increase commitment, encourage organization citizenship behavior, or decrease turnover, then firms that engage in

CSR should perform better than those that do not. Moreover, a micro-level analysis of how employees form

impressions and conceptualize their relationships with firms should complement and extend existing macro-level

theories, help identify missing process variables and contingencies, and account for additional variance in how

individuals respond to specific policies and actions (e.g., Foss, 2011; Powell & Colyvas, 2008; Staw, 1991). The micro-

level processes that are responsible for a relation between CSR and employee attitudes and behavior may also

generalize and provide additional insight into the effects of CSR on other stakeholders. The time is right for

organizational behaviorists to join the conversation about CSR and construct individual-level theories of when, why,

and how CSR affects employees.

2. Employee perceptions of organizations

The first step in understanding the potential impact of CSR on employees is to consider why CSR may represent a

special opportunity to positively influence employees’ and prospective employees’ perceptions of firms. In the next

section, we explain how people form impressions of others and discuss why the moral implications of CSR should

make it particularly consequential for employee relations.

2.1. Corporations are people-like

The notion of corporate personhood has been in the news a lot lately as a result of Supreme Court’s ruling on

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, discussions of corporate tax rates, and the much publicized sound

bite, ‘‘Corporations are people, my friend’’ taken from presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign stop at the


2011 Iowa State Fair. Despite how loaded the concept of corporate personhood can be in the legal and political arenas

(and the current authors’ own skepticism about the wisdom of the Citizens United decision), people nonetheless use

many of the same psychological processes to perceive, understand, and evaluate organizations as they do persons. To

be clear, our claim is not that corporations and persons are or should be equivalent in any sense; we mean only to assert

that there is utility in examining corporations as artificial persons (see Bradley, Brief, & Smith-Crowe, 2008).

People often anthropomorphize organizations (Davies et al., 2003; Dowling, 2001; Levinson, 1965). They treat

them as single entities rather than as aggregated collectives and endow them with humanlike qualities, including

motives and intentions (Fombrun, 1996; Hamilton & Sherman, 1996). In people’s minds, organizations are social

actors that have the capacities to deliberate, self-reflect, act with purpose, and be held accountable for those actions

(King, Felin, & Whetten, 2010). By applying familiar lay theories of human nature to non-human entities, people can

reduce the amount of uncertainty they experience and make difficult to control situations seem predictable and more

manageable (Epley et al., 2007; Guthrie, 1993; Waytz, Morewedge, Epley, Monteleone, Gao, & Cacioppo, 2010). In

short, anthropomorphism provides people with the tools they need to make sense of their relationships with

companies, brands, and a variety of other non-human entities (e.g., Fournier, 1998; Levinson, 1965; Muniz &

O’Guinn, 2001). Therefore, we turn next to psychological research on social perceptions and discuss its implications

for how CSR may influence employees’ impressions of firms.

2.2. Perceived corporate morality

People often assume that actors’ behavior in one situation is indicative of their underlying traits and stable

behavioral tendencies (Ashe, 1946; Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1972). Despite the complexities of

human behavior, a two-dimensional structure explains most social evaluations (e.g., Cuddy et al., 2011; Fiske, Cuddy,

& Glick, 2007; Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt & Kashima, 2005; Peeters, 1983; Reeder, 1985; Rosenberg & Sedlak,

1972; Wojciszke, 1994). One dimension, variously labeled competence, ability, or agency, refers to actors’ capacity to

attain their goals and consists of attributions about skill, intelligence, inefficiency, or ineptitude. A second dimension,

labeled warmth, morality, or communion, addresses the social implications of actors’ goals and consists of inferences

about traits including friendliness, honesty, aggressiveness, or recklessness. Language provides the tools to produce

highly nuanced evaluations of social encounters, but this simple two-factor framework can account for a large amount

of the variance in people’s evaluations of themselves and others. For example, in a study that examined judgments of

over 1100 real-world situations, people’s interpretations of behavior reflected one of these two dimensions more than

75% of the time (Wojciszke, 1994). Moreover, these two dimensions characterize social judgments of several types

and across a range of situations, including small group interactions (Parsons & Bales, 1955), interpersonal attraction

(Lydon, Jamieson, & Zanna, 1988), personality (Wiggins, 1991), autobiographical memory (McAdams, Hoffman,

Mansfield, & Day, 1996), perceptions of political leaders (Kinder & Sears, 1985), group stereotypes (Fiske, Cuddy,

Glick & Xu, 2002), consumers’ views of companies and their products (Brown & Dacin, 1997), and employees’

evaluations of their supervisors (Wojciszke, Abele, & Baryla, 2009).

The warmth dimension comprises a wide set of social traits and behavioral tendencies, but the subset of warmth

traits people associate with morality has stronger effects on person perception than warmth traits that refer to general

sociability (Anderson & Sedikides, 1991; Brambilla, Rusconi, Sacchi, & Cherubini, 2011; Leach et al., 2007;

Rosenberg et al., 1968). Sociability traits indicate a person’s style of relating with others (e.g., affability, likeability,

aggressiveness), whereas morality traits include an appraisal of correctness or incorrectness (trustworthiness,

sincerity, dishonesty; Brambilla et al., 2011). Aggressiveness, for example, provides information about a person’s

behavioral tendencies, but it does not necessarily imply that an actor is fundamentally good or bad. Aggressiveness is

appropriate, acceptable, and even desirable in some situations. Dishonesty, in contrast, includes an evaluative

component that stems from the rigidity people usually associate with their moral rules and beliefs. People perceive

morals as terminal absolutes, or ends in themselves, that apply across persons and situations (Skitka et al., 2005).

Behavior in moral contexts, therefore, is less attributable to situational causes and more supportive of dispositional

inference, or moral character judgment (Pizarro & Tannenbaum, 2012; Reeder & Spores, 1983; Tannenbaum,

Uhlmann, & Diermeier, 2011). Importantly, perceived morality plays a dominant role in how people evaluate others

relative to competence and sociability (Brambilla et al., 2011; Leach et al., 2007).

Morality is difficult to define precisely in terms of specific content (see Bauman & Skitka, 2009; Tenbrunsel &

Smith-Crowe, 2008), but many would agree that it generally involves standards for how people ought to treat each


other that take into account human welfare, rights, and justice (Turiel, 1983; cf. Graham et al., 2011; Kohlberg, 1984;

Shweder, Much, Mahapatra, & Park, 1997). CSR, by definition, addresses the relation of business to society, which

necessarily involves questions about rights, justice, and how business affects human welfare. The connections between

CSR and morality are also reflected in the great care theorists have taken to ground their views in principles of

normative ethics, irrespective of whether they espouse a narrow or expansive view of CSR (e.g., Donaldson & Preston,

1995; Freeman, 1994; Friedman & Friedman, 1980; Jones, 1995; Sternberg, 2000). In sum, corporate policies and

actions typically associated with CSR represent important sources of information that influence individuals’

judgments of corporate morality (Ellemers et al., 2011; Jones, 1995; Swanson, 1995).

Aspects of CSR may differ in terms of the amount and type of impact they have on judgments of corporate morality.

People generally pay more attention and react more strongly to negative than positive events (Baumeister, Bratslavsky,

Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Fiske, 1980; Kanouse & Hanson, 1972). In the context of CSR, a firm’s failure to comply

with the law or adhere to widely-accepted ethical standards for conduct, such as a serious scandal, will usually draw

more attention and have a stronger influence on people’s perceptions than positive discretionary activities, such as

philanthropy and community outreach efforts (cf. Lange & Washburn, 2012). That said, positive discretionary

activities may still serve a special function because corporate goodness entails more than merely the absence of bad.

Companies that refrain from doing wrong are ‘‘decent’’ at best, but to be a ‘‘good’’ company also requires an active

commitment—in both intent and action—to promote virtuous ends (Bradley et al., 2008; Paine, 2003). Discretionary

CSR activities (i.e., those advocated by proponents of the expansive but not the narrow view on CSR) represent one

way companies can attempt to move beyond decency and approach corporate morality in the eyes of their employees

and other stakeholders. Importantly, we expect the psychological needs we discuss in detail below to be more closely

aligned with perceived morality than decency.

2.3. Evaluating complex actors

Before moving on, it is important to note that evaluating corporate morality is difficult because corporations, like

people, are complex entities whose actions are neither all good nor all bad (Bradley et al., 2008). A company that

performs admirably when it comes to promoting safety on the shop floor, for example, may not effectively handle

issues related to workforce diversity or consider the environmental impact of its operations. Objective measures of

corporate morality therefore are fraught with uncertainty about what actions ought to count and how each should be

weighted when creating an aggregated score. That said, people routinely make moral attributions and character

judgments based on information they have available (Birnbaum, 1973; Pizarro & Tannenbaum, 2012; Reeder &

Spores, 1983), and cognitive economy requires that these judgments be imperfect and perhaps even overly simplistic at

times (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Therefore, employees’ perceptions of corporate morality may not correspond to

assessments conducted by ratings agencies or judgments made by other stakeholders. Regardless, we expect that

employees’ subjective assessments of moral character influence their attitudes and behavior toward their company, just

as they do when people evaluate other persons.

Judgments of morality, like other social inferences, are relatively stable and resist change once formed (Birnbaum,

1973; Reeder & Coovert, 1986; see also Briscoe, Woodyard, & Shaw, 1967; Crocker, Fiske, & Taylor, 1984). Yet, in

the face of severe shocks or a corpus of evidence to the contrary, judgments of corporate morality are malleable and

subject to revision. Under normal circumstances, however, people interpret new events through the lens of their prior

judgments about the actor. Prior moral deeds act like ‘‘credits’’ that can change the way people construe ambiguous

actions or lessen the blow of clear transgressions (Effron & Monin, 2010; Godfrey, 2005; Godfrey, Merrill, & Hansen,

2009; Fombrun et al., 2000). People judge moral transgressions as less severe and are more lenient in their punishment

recommendations when transgressors have a history of moral behavior relative to when they do not (Effron & Monin,

2010). Paralleling these results, a positive reputation for CSR can reduce the extent to which consumers blame a

company for a product–harm crisis and limit the negative impact of the crisis on brand evaluations and purchasing

intentions (Klein & Dawar, 2004). Similarly, at the level of the firm, having a positive reputation for CSR lessens the

impact of negative events, such as law suits and punitive regulatory actions, on company stock prices (Godfrey et al.,

2009). Taken together, this evidence converges on the notion that people form global judgments about a company

based on its level of CSR, which in turn affects how people think, feel, and act toward the company.

In summary, perceived morality plays a critical role in how people relate to others, and CSR represents one source

of information employees can use to judge corporate morality. Discretionary CSR activities, in particular, may


contribute positively to overall impressions of corporate morality, over and above what can be achieved through

compliance with legal and ethical standards alone. In the next section, we argue that employee perceptions of

corporate morality can affect employee attitudes and behavior because corporate morality also addresses some basic

psychological needs.

3. CSR and employee needs

In the following sections, we discuss four basic psychological needs that represent the origins of four distinct paths

through which CSR can affect employees’ relationship with their company.1 Specifically, we explain how CSR can

provide employees with (1) a sense of security and safety that their material needs will be met, (2) self-esteem that stems

from a positive social identity, (3) feelings of belongingness and social validation of important values, and (4) existential

meaning and a deeper sense of purpose at work. We draw from and extend prior work that has explored associations

between CSR and justice (Aguilera et al., 2007; Rupp, 2011; Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, & Williams, 2006) and

incorporate additional insights from recent research on social identity (e.g., Ellemers et al., 2011) and pro-social

motivation (e.g., Grant, 2007). We frame our discussion in terms of morality rather than justice because morality provides

a broad base of concerns that includes justice but also other moral concerns, such as harm, care, and purity (e.g., Gilligan,

1982; Graham et al., 2011; Haidt & Joseph, 2004; Kohlberg, 1984; Shweder et al., 1997; Turiel, 1983). Justice is one lens

through which employees interpret CSR, but other moral concerns may be the primary driver of employees’ interest in

certain aspects of CSR. For example, the ethic of care may best account for employee perceptions of philanthropic efforts

that benefit the poor and the needy (e.g., pharmaceutical companies’ efforts to address diseases like AIDS and river

blindness in Africa), and the ethic of purity may underlie employee concerns about the environmental impact of their

company’s activities. In short, we believe that CSR increases perceived corporate morality, which in turn can help to

satisfy employees’ needs for security, self-esteem, belongingness, and a meaningful existence.

3.1. Need for security and safety

People generally would prefer to maximize rewards and minimize costs in relationships with groups and

individuals (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Coworkers, teammates, partners, and companies

have a greater potential to provide rewards when they are competent rather than incompetent. People should therefore

prefer to affiliate with more rather than less competent others, all else being equal. However, social interaction also

involves a fundamental dilemma about cooperation and competition (Bakan, 1966; Gintis, Bowles, Boyd, & Fehr,

2005; Lind, 2001; Rawls, 1999). Although working together toward a common interest provides people with a means

to accomplish tasks and goals they could not reach on their own, it also inherently includes a risk of exploitation. Belief

that another party is moral provides people with a sense of security and safety because people assume that moral actors

are less likely to take advantage of them (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Lind & Van den Bos, 2002; van den Bos & Lind,

2002; Wojciszke, 2005). Therefore, to the extent that CSR fosters perceptions of corporate morality, CSR should help

to satisfy the need for safety and security. Several distinct lines of thought echo this basic logic.

Perceptions of morality often involve an element of trust. Researchers define trust as anticipated cooperation (Burt

& Knez, 1996) or as an expectation that another’s actions will be beneficial or at least not detrimental one’s own

interests (Robinson, 1996). Trust is often cultivated through reciprocity in repeated interactions (e.g., Deutsch, 1958;

Lindskold, 1978; Pilisuk & Skolnick, 1968; Solomon, 1960; Weber, Malhotra, & Murnighan, 2005). In the absence of

a history that allows people to diagnose trustworthiness, people draw evidence from other sources that serve as

substitutes for personal experience (Creed & Miles, 1996; Zucker, 1986). For example, trust can stem from a shared

understanding of the rules regarding appropriate behavior (Kramer, 1999; Kramer & Lewicki, 2010). Organizations

that set clear injunctive and descriptive norms for behavior can shape members’ expectations that others will act in a

trustworthy manner. ‘‘Rule-based trust is not predicated on members’ ability to predict specific others’ trust-related

1 Needs are the core determinants of motivation. They are universal in the sense that every human experiences them to some degree at some time

(e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000; Maslow, 1943; Murray, 1938; Tay & Diener, 2011). Contemporary theorists have left behind the antiquated and

empirically unfounded notion of need hierarchies (see Wahba & Birdwell, 1976), but they have retained the more basic premise that needs are a

useful means to organize and explain a wide range of behaviors using a small set of foundational concerns (Deci, 1992; Fiske, 2010).


behaviors, but rather on their shared understandings regarding the normatively binding structure of rules guiding—and

constraining—both their own and others’ conduct’’ (Kramer & Lewicki, 2010, p. 264). Somewhat analogously, we

believe that a company’s CSR activities can show its understanding of and commitment to a structure of ethical rules

that guide and constrain its conduct and, in turn, foster presumptive trust and provide some sense of security and safety.

Instrumental stakeholder theory similarly maintains that corporate morality is an efficient way to mitigate concerns

about opportunism and to improve relationships between firms and stakeholders, including employees (Jones, 1995).

Formal contracts between exchange partners clarify some expectations about performance and compensation, but no

written contract can explicitly detail all aspects of a complex relationship (e.g., Kotter, 1973; Rousseau, 1995). Trust is

therefore an integral component of all exchange relationships (Blau, 1964; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro,

1990). In employee–employer relationships, employees look for reassurance that the company will not renege on

important aspects of the psychological contract, such as appropriate compensation relative to others, good working

conditions, opportunities for advancement, and job security. According to instrumental stakeholder theory, employees

address this concern by evaluating corporate morality based on their direct experiences with company policies and

decisions. For example, employees will infer that a company is trustworthy, not opportunistic, if it tends to promote from

within rather than always fills key positions with outside candidates (Pfeffer, 1994). However, employees also consider

whether the firm is opportunistic when dealing with other stakeholders. A strict ‘‘no returns’’ policy, for example, may

suggest that the company is willing to act opportunistically toward customers and cause employees to question how it will

act toward them (Jones, 1995). Given that CSR comprises a wide range of activities that illustrate a company’s general

orientation toward its stakeholders, CSR should affect employees’ perceptions of corporate morality and influence their

expectations about whether the company is likely to act opportunistically versus honor psychological contracts.

Signaling theory emphasizes that people interpret available information as signals they can use to fill the information

gaps that are common in market situations (Spence, 1974; Wanous, 1992). Job seekers frequently lack specific details

about important employment characteristics, such as the working conditions and the quality of relationships within the

organization. To cope with this ambiguity, they look for signals that allow them to anticipate what it would be like to work

for a given company (Barber, 1998; Breaugh, 1992; Rynes, 1991). Applicants may therefore infer from CSR that a

company holds certain values and norms that are likely to affect working conditions and the overall job environment

(Backhaus, Stone, & Heiner, 2002; Greening & Turban, 2000; Turban & Greening, 1997).

Fairness heuristic theory also asserts that people who lack sufficient information to evaluate a situation use

available evidence to infer whether they are safe from exploitation and exclusion from important groups (Lind, 2001;

Lind & Van den Bos, 2002; van den Bos, Lind, & Wilke, 2001). According to the theory, people in uncertain situations

form general fairness judgments about people, systems, and organizations based on available information. They then

use their general fairness judgment as a heuristic that functions as a proxy for trust; it helps them to interpret new

information and serves as a substitute for missing information. For example, when people do not know how decisions

that affect them will be made, they may judge fairness based on how others’ have been treated (van den Bos et al.,

2001). Likewise, people often use procedural information to evaluate the fairness of outcomes when they do not have

relevant social comparison information (van den Bos, Lind, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997; van den Bos et al., 2001). Based

on fairness heuristic theory’s substitutability principle, Rupp, Aguilera, and colleagues have argued that employees

use CSR as a proxy for fairness (Aguilera et al., 2007; Rupp, 2011; Rupp et al., 2006). In their view, CSR indicates to

employees that their organization is generally committed to social justice across stakeholder relationships and can be

trusted to provide them with the outcomes they deserve.

In sum, CSR may help to satisfy the need for security and safety because companies with a strong reputation for

CSR generally exhibit cooperative rather than opportunistic behavior across stakeholder relationships. Employees and

prospective employees may then infer from CSR that their company is moral and conclude that it is safe to invest their

time and effort into the success of the company, or put differently, CSR may serve as the basis of presumptive trust.

Prospective and new employees may be especially likely to look toward CSR as a means to satisfy their need for

security and safety because these individuals have little personal experience to guide their expectations about how the

company will treat them.

3.2. Need for esteem

People desire to maintain a positive image of themselves (e.g., Locke, McClear, & Knight, 1996; Maslow, 1943;

Sedikides & Strube, 1997; Steele, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Relationships with groups and individuals are


important to people’s self-concept for at least two reasons. First, memberships in groups and organizations often serve

as a source of pride and value (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton, Roberts, & Bedar, 2010; Tajfel & Turner, 1979;

Tyler, 1999). Second, perceived similarity to others in a group provides a sense of belongingness and validates people’s

personal values and beliefs (Byrne, 1971; Heider, 1958; Newcomb, 1961, 1978; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &

Wetherell, 1987). In other words, people can derive esteem from advantageous intergroup comparisons, and they also

are reassured by intragroup similarity. Most prior work in this area has focused on the role of CSR in firm reputation

and intergroup comparisons, and only very little research has considered whether CSR shapes employees’ perceptions

of how well they fit within the organization. We first review social identity theory and research that conceptualizes

CSR as a means to achieve positive group distinctiveness. We then explore how aspects of CSR can affect the extent to

which people identify with their organization and symbolize what people in the organization believe is right and good.

3.2.1. Intergroup distinctiveness

Group membership is a fundamental part of the way people define themselves and understand their social

environment (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). People incorporate groups that are important to them into their self-concept,

including the organizations for which they work. They feel a sense of connectedness or unity with these groups and

view group successes and failures as personal successes and failures (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton, Dukerich, &

Harquail, 1994; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). As a result, people care deeply about how well their groups compare with

others. They search for characteristics, perhaps especially virtuous qualities and character strengths, that

distinguish their group from others and use them to judge group favorability (Dutton et al., 2010; Tajfel & Turner,

1979). People also try to build positive social identities by affiliating with attractive and successful groups

(‘‘basking in reflected glory,’’ Cialdini et al., 1976; see also Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986). In short, social

identity provides answers to two important questions: ‘‘Who are we?’’ and ‘‘How good are we?’’ (Ashforth,

Harrison, & Corley, 2008).

Several researchers have argued recently that employees and prospective employees view CSR as a source of

positive distinctiveness that enhances the image of a firm relative to others and makes membership in the organization

more attractive. Consistent with this view, research conducted at the level of the firm indicates that CSR is an important

contributor to overall firm reputation (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990), and micro-level research demonstrates that

prospective employees are more attracted to companies with a stronger reputation for CSR (Albinger & Freeman,

2000; Backhaus et al., 2002; Greening & Turban, 2000; Turban & Greening, 1997; cf. Luce, Barber & Hillman, 2001).

Studies of existing employees also show that CSR has a number of positive effects on attitudes about the company and

workplace behavior, including organizational pride, satisfaction, commitment, in-role performance, organizational

citizenship behavior, and turnover intentions (Brammer, Millington, & Pavelin, 2006; Ellemers et al., 2011; Jones,

2010; Lin, Lyau, Tsai, Chen, & Chiu, 2010; Peterson, 2004; Riordan, Gatewood, & Bill, 1997; Valentine &

Fleischman, 2008; cf. Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). Taken together, these studies provide a growing body of evidence

that fits an identity-based account of how CSR affects employees. That said, direct empirical evidence that social

identity processes drive the relation between CSR and employee attitudes and behavior is limited.

We could find only three studies that measured organizational identification and tested whether it mediated the

relationship between CSR and employee attitudes and behavior (Bartel, 2001; Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldman, 2007;

Jones, 2010). Carmeli et al. (2007) surveyed employees and supervisors from four companies in the electronics and

media industry. Employees reported their perceptions of their company’s financial performance and social

responsibility, and supervisors rated their employees’ performance and employee adjustment (i.e., the extent to which

they seemed to get along with others, accept criticism, and fit with others in their work group). Results indicated that

employees’ perceptions of social responsibility increased organizational identification, which in turn increased

supervisors’ ratings of employee adjustment and job performance. Therefore, this study seems to provide direct

evidence that CSR can cause organizational identification. Some may question, however, the extent to which the

measure of social responsibility used in this study captured central features of the construct. The social responsibility

measure consisted of four items that assessed employees’ perceptions of product quality, product development, the

company’s ability to retain employees, and relations between management and employees. Although confirmatory

factor analysis found that these four items loaded on a different factor than employee perceptions of sales growth,

profitability, and market share, it is unclear whether employees construed the aspects of the company included in the

social responsibility measures in terms of CSR. It may be that the study actually measured two aspects of economic

performance rather than one indicator of economic performance and one indicator of social performance.


Bartel (2001) and Jones (2010) provide clearer evidence that social identity processes mediate the relationship

between CSR and employee attitudes and behavior. Bartel (2001) examined Pilsbury employees’ experiences in

several arms of the company’s community outreach (i.e., volunteerism) program. She found that participation in the

program provided employees’ with opportunities to make favorable social comparisons, which enhanced collective

self-esteem and strength of identification with the organization. Stronger organizational identification, in turn, was

positively associated with supervisors’ subsequent ratings of program participants’ work effort, willingness to provide

assistance to fellow employees, and attempts to maintain or improve positive work relationships. Supervisors also

mentioned in qualitative interviews that they believed that some employees who participated in the program were

energized by their experiences and worked harder has a result. Jones (2010) similarly found that employees’ attitudes

about a volunteerism program were positively associated with organizational pride and identification, which in turn

predicted employees’ intentions to remain with the organization, organizational citizenship behavior, and in-role

performance six months later. The results of these two studies provide the best empirical evidence that CSR engages

social identity processes and affects employees’ relationship with their organizations. Of course, generalizability is a

concern because the studies examined similar programs. Nevertheless, these studies provide the type of data necessary

to substantiate claims about the psychological processes and organizational outcomes CSR triggers.

In sum, identity and identification appear to play a role in the effect of CSR on employees, but empirical evidence is

still sparse. This is one key area in need of future research. In the next section, we raise the possibility that CSR can

increase organizational identification because it affects how employees view themselves vis-a-vis the organization

rather than how well they feel their company compares with others.

3.2.2. Belongingness

CSR may promote organizational identification because it can influence the amount of similarity or dissimilarity

people perceive between themselves and the organization. Self-categorization theory, part of the broader social

identity perspective, explains the cognitive processes responsible for how and when people think of themselves as

individuals or members of groups (Turner, 1982, 1984; Turner et al., 1987; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994).

The theory differentiates between personal identity (the individual or personal self) and social identity (the collective

self). Onorato and Turner (2004) describe the distinctions between these levels of identity as follows: ‘‘Personal

identity refers to ‘me’ versus ‘not me’ categorizations. . .social identity, on the other hand, refers to ‘us’ versus ‘them’

categorizations’’ (p. 259). Self-categorization theory predicts that personal and social identities operate rather

hydraulically: the salience of personal identity is inhibited to the extent that a social identity is salient and vice versa

(Onorato & Turner, 2004).

According to self-categorization theory, people cognitively represent groups as prototypes. Prototypes are sets of

attributes (e.g., values, attitudes, behaviors) that best define the group according to the perceiver’s subjective view

(Turner, 1987). People use prototypes to judge the degree of similarity between the self or others and the group. When

people believe that they are prototypical, they feel secure about their self-concept and their place within the group and

the social world at large; but when people believe that they are not prototypical, they experience uncertainty about their

self-concept and are less likely to identify with the group (Dutton et al., 1994; Hogg & Abrams, 1993; Hogg & Terry,

2000). Analogous ideas about the significance of value similarity can be found in several other prominent perspectives

on interpersonal relationships and group behavior, including the similarity-attraction hypothesis (Byrne, 1971;

Newcomb, 1961, 1978), relational and organizational demography (e.g., Pfeffer, 1983; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989; see

especially Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995), and research on person-organization fit

(e.g., Kristof, 1996; O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991; Schneider, 1987). The take home message from each of

these programs of research is that people prefer to affiliate with groups of others who are similar to themselves. To the

extent that CSR communicates company values and influences employees’ prototype of their company, CSR may

affect employees’ judgments of their own prototypicality and their level of identification with the firm.

Company volunteerism programs may be especially likely to affect identification through perceived

prototypicality. Volunteerism programs are an increasingly common way that companies get involved in local

communities, and many companies directly subsidize volunteerism by giving employees paid time off to volunteer

(Jones, 2010; United Nations Volunteers, 2011). For example, Booz Allen Hamilton’s Volunteer Service Grant

program annually distributes $500,000 in employees’ names to nonprofit organizations where employees volunteer at

least 40 h of their time per year (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2012), and Timberland’s Path of Service program pays

employees around the world for up to 40 h of service to their community (Timberland, 2012). Of course, programs


such as these may increase employee organizational identification because they have the potential to improve the

firms’ reputation in the eyes of the community. However, volunteer projects that bring groups of employees together

outside of the workplace may also affect identification by aligning employees’ prototypes of the organization with

their views of themselves. The experience of working collectively as volunteers may be particularly memorable and

help to reinforce employees’ sense that they are like others in the company (cf. Bartel, 2001). People are more likely to

make dispositional attributions for behavior that is discretionary than compulsory (Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley,

1972), and people typically only volunteer their time when the cause is important to them. Employees who participate

in volunteerism programs alongside their coworkers are therefore more likely to interpret their activity as evidence that

they share important values with their firm. In this way, volunteerism programs may increase employee pride and

identification because they effect employees’ perceptions of their own prototypicality with the firm, above and beyond

the firm’s CSR programs’ effects on the firms’ reputation in the community.

In summary, social identity processes can help explain why CSR matters to employees. CSR may serve as a basis

for favorable intergroup comparisons and a source of group-based esteem. It also may help shape employees’

prototype of the group and affect perceived value similarity and sense of belongingness. Intergroup distinctiveness and

intragroup similarity often operate in tandem as part of individuals’ ongoing efforts to understand their social

environment (Hogg, 2000; Hogg & Terry, 2000), but future research needs to add precision to our understanding of

how these two mechanisms operate in the context of CSR.

3.3. Need for a meaningful existence

Many classic theories of motivation and human development suggest that people strive to achieve more in life than

material comfort and social approval (Alderfer, 1972; Erikson, 1950; Maslow, 1943, 1954, 1971; McClelland, 1965;

McGregor, 1960; Rogers, 1959, 1961; see also Frankl, 1959). Although it is not essential for people to satisfy all of

their psychological needs through work (Nord, Brief, Atieh, & Doherty, 1988), work nonetheless can be meaningful

and enrich the quality of life in addition to providing a paycheck (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003;

Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). One way work can be meaningful is to have a positive impact on others’ lives

in addition to benefitting the worker (Grant, 2007; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). People can

derive a sense of purpose and significance from work they perceive as something that contributes to individuals’ well-

being, improves their community, or is vital to society (Grant, 2007; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Wrzesniewski, 2003).

Helping others also can contribute to people’s general sense that they are living life in a manner that is consistent with

their core values (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002; cf. Aristotle, 1908). In other words, prosocial elements of work are

meaningful because they ‘‘bring individuals into harmony with other beings or principles’’ (Rosso et al., 2010, p. 115).

Of course, not all jobs are inherently meaningful. It may be very easy for nurses or firefighters to view their work as

meaningful because they are physically close to those who benefit from their work and the help they provide is

significant and enduring (Grant, 2007). In contrast, employees who work for a company like Coca-Cola may have

greater difficulty grasping how their work is meaningful and important. CSR has the potential to fulfill employees’

needs for meaning, perhaps especially in work settings where the products of work do not lead directly to prosocial

benefits for others. Learning that the goal of the Coca-Cola Company is to give back at least 1% of their annual

operating income to improve the living standards of people around the world, for example, may give Coca-Cola

employees a greater sense of meaning than they would have if Coca-Cola did not engage in these efforts. In 2010,

Coca-Cola achieved its goal of using 1.2% of its operating income to fund projects such as water stewardship,

community recycling and education, and disaster relief in communities facing crises (Coca-Cola Company, 2010/

2011). Corporate sponsored volunteer projects, such as Coca-Cola’s Pick It Up, Clean It Up, Sea Change program (an

effort designed to pick up trash on beaches), are also likely to increase Coca-Cola employees’ sense of meaning.

Consistent with the idea that Coca-Cola employees are eager to find meaning through their work, more than 26,000

employees volunteered for the Sea Change program in 2011, and they collectively picked up more than 200,000

pounds of trash (Coca-Cola Company, 2010/2011). Companies that support volunteerism and engage in philanthropy

may facilitate employees’ participation in their community and provide a way that employees can feel like they are

part of an effort to help others around the world. These types of activities may bring a completely different type of

meaning to the workplace that would not be possible through profit maximization alone.

In summary, the extant empirical literature includes a limited but growing body of evidence that indicates that CSR

does indeed influence employees’ and prospective employees’ attitudes about companies and behavior in the workplace


Table 1

Employee need CSR activities likely to satisfy need Psychological mediators Consequences of need fulfillment

Safety/security � Employee-centered CSR (e.g.,

competitive wages, health

insurance coverage, employee

development programs, positive

union relations)

� Trust in the company

� Perceived general fairness

� Decrease counterproductive work

behavior

� Facilitate employee recruitment

and retention

� Enhance organizational

commitment

Distinctiveness � Highly visible extra-organizational

CSR efforts (e.g., philanthropy,

community engagement)

� Consumer-centered CSR (e.g.,

product and service quality)

� Environmental stewardship

� Firm reputation (i.e., employees’

estimation of how others perceive

the firm)

� Firm image (i.e., employees’

perception of how the firm presents

itself to others)

� Pride in organizational membership

� Facilitate employee recruitment

and retention


commitment

Belongingness � Symbols of values (e.g., specific

philanthropic causes,

environmental impact, diversity)

� Values and mission statements

� Firm identity (i.e., employees’

conceptualization of their firm)

� Value affirmation

� Perceived similarity and fit

� Psychological ownership and sense

of responsibility

� Improve extra-role performance

� Increase organizational citizenship

behavior

� Encourage ethical behavior and

decision making


commitment

Meaning � Extra-organizational CSR efforts

(e.g., volunteerism programs, pro

bono services, philanthropic and

community outreach programs)

� Feelings of authenticity

� Perceived contribution to others’

welfare, the community, or society

� Generativity or sense that one has

helped to build a positive legacy

� Increase employee life satisfaction

and emotional well-being

� Improve task persistence and

in-role performance

� Enhance organizational commitment

(Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). However, micro-level research on CSR is still in its infancy. To date, research has focused

mainly on ways that individuals respond to CSR, and only very few studies have empirically examined the psychological

processes that underlie the effects. Our needs-based approach provides a broad theoretical account of why employees and

prospective employees may care about CSR, and in doing so, it begins to connect CSR with a broad set of existing theories

in micro-level organizational behavior and social psychology. A great deal of future research will need to test the

mechanisms responsible for employees’ reactions to CSR, identify conditional relationships, establish boundary

conditions, explore additional outcomes, and further specify how CSR related to other theories and phenomena. The area

is full of opportunities for new discoveries. In the next section, we turn our attention to how our needs-based approach to

understanding employees’ reactions to CSR can help guide future research.

4. An agenda for micro-level research on CSR

Our agenda for future research is based on the idea that employees’ psychological needs, types of CSR, and

organizational outcomes are linked (see Table 1). A major premise behind our approach is that a wide array of theories

and empirical research in organizational behavior and social psychology can inform questions about how employees

are likely to react to CSR. An overarching framework should help to identify how important pieces may fit together

and suggest new areas to explore.

Our needs-based framework highlights reasons why employees may care about CSR. To the extent that CSR helps

address a range of psychological needs, it should complement (but not replace) other forms of worker compensation

and have a variety of important organizational consequences.2 Fulfillment or partial fulfillment of each psychological

2 By emphasizing the potential value added by CSR, we do not mean to understate the economic importance of work for most people (see Brief,

Konovsky, George, Goodwin, & Link, 1995; Brief & Nord, 1990; Nord et al., 1988). All else being equal, however, we expect that people probably

would prefer to earn money while also feeling safe and secure, proud of their company, similar to other employees, and helpful to others.


need contributes separately to subjective well-being, but need fulfillment is only rewarding up to the point of

satisfaction (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000; Murray, 1938; Tay & Diener, 2011). As with money, the marginal utility of

addressing any given need declines beyond a certain point (Diener, Ng, Harter, & Arora, 2010; Kahneman & Deaton,

2010). For example, evidence that a company is likely to honor the psychological contract should have a stronger

effect on employees who are experiencing uncertainty than those who already feel safe and secure. Moreover,

employees who experience moderate levels of security, distinctiveness, belongingness, and meaningfulness at work

should be happier overall than employees who feel extremely secure but lack distinctiveness, belongingness, and

meaningfulness. People generally prefer to have a ‘‘balanced life,’’ that is, when several important needs are satisfied

and there is no major deficiency in any area (Diener, Ng, & Tov, 2008; Sirgy & Wu, 2009). CSR represents a means

through which companies can address several of employees’ needs, enhance overall well-being, and strengthen their

relationship with their organization. However, different types of CSR are likely to address different psychological

needs which may in turn produce different outcomes.

4.1. Safety and security

People’s need for safety and security stems from the risk of exploitation that is fundamental to social interactions.

Instrumental stakeholder theory, fairness heuristic theory, signaling theory, and research on trust all suggest that

people use available information to assess whether companies are likely to act opportunistically or honor the

psychological contract (e.g., Kramer & Lewicki, 2010; Jones, 1995; Lind, 2001; Spence, 1974; van den Bos & Lind,

2002). CSR activities that positively affect employee relations should have the greatest capacity to satisfy employees’

and prospective employees’ concerns about safety and security. Formal policies and company programs that directly

address issues such as employee benefits, working conditions, and development programs can demonstrate a

company’s general commitment to its employees, contribute to judgments of general fairness and attributions of

corporate morality, build trust in the company, and reduce fears of exploitation (cf. Aguilera et al., 2007; Rupp, 2011;

Rupp et al., 2006).

CSR activities that affect employee relations and assuage safety and security needs have the potential to produce a

variety of positive organizational consequences, but two seem particularly likely. First, employee-centered CSR

should decrease deviant or counterproductive work behavior directed toward the organization. Prior research

indicates, for example, that employees steal less from their company and miss fewer days of work when they feel that

their company pays them appropriately rather than inappropriately and uses fair rather than unfair decision making

policies and procedures (Greenberg, 1990; Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002; see also Conlon, Meyer, Nowakowski,

2005). Second, employee-centered CSR should increase firms’ ability to recruit and retain high quality employees

(Backhaus et al., 2002; Greening & Turban, 2000; Turban & Greening, 1997; cf. Behling, Labovitz, & Gainer, 1968;

Rynes, 1991). However, this effect may be stronger for job seekers than existing employees. Job seekers are likely to

have access to formal, organizational-level policies and procedures that affect employees, but they lack information

about how any given supervisor is likely to interpret and implement them. Existing employees, in contrast, are likely to

consider their organization’s formal guidelines, but they also have a host of personal experiences with their

supervisors, the human resources department, and others responsible for enacting company rules. These additional

informal, or supervisor-level, sources of information also shape employees’ evaluations of the organization at large

(Blader & Tyler, 2003; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Therefore, employee-centered CSR is likely to constitute a larger

portion of the evidence relevant to safety and security that is available to prospective employees compared to what is

available to existing employees. In any case, companies that ensure that employees receive their just deserts should

have fewer problems with workplace deviance and counterproductive behavior, and they should be more attractive to

existing and prospective employees.

Consistent with this idea, Costco consistently emphasizes in its annual report that taking care of employees is part

of the company’s mission and core values (e.g., Costco Wholesale Corporation, 2011, p. 2), and it backs up its claims

with a host of employee-friendly policies.3 Costco pays highly competitive wages and contributes to up 9% of

3 Although one certainly could question whether these policies constitute CSR or simply represent elements of economic exchange, we include

this example because these policies are at least partly responsible for Costco having a reputation for caring for its employees (see Goldberg & Ritter,

2006; Shapiro, 2004).


employees’ salary to 401(k) plans (Cascio, 2006). Eighty-five percent of Costco employees have health and dental

insurance through the company, and they pay only about 8% of the cost (Greenhouse, 2005). In comparison, less than

half of the employees at other major retailers have access to health insurance, and those who do pay an average of 23%

of the premium (Coleman-Lochner, 2006).

Costco further differs from its competitors because it allows its employees to unionize and maintains good relations

with the unions. In a 2005 interview, the chief negotiator for the Teamsters union called the company’s contract with

the Teamsters ‘‘the best agreement of any retailer in the country,’’ and explained that it guaranteed that full time

employees would comprise at least half of workforce at stores and part time employees would be offered the

opportunity to work at least 25 h per week (Greenhouse, 2005). Costco also offers employees stability and a career

path by requiring approval from senior company officers to terminate any employee with over two years of experience

and promising to fill 86% of its openings for top positions with internal candidates (Shapiro, 2004). Taken together,

Costco sends a clear message to employees and prospective employees that it will not take advantage of them, and

Costco enjoys low levels of turnover and the lowest levels of employee theft in the industry—just one tenth of the

industry average (Shapiro, 2004).

In summary, CSR activities that directly benefit employees should be especially likely to satisfy employees’ need

for safety and security. Policies and procedures that show concern for employees and promise a good working

environment prompt attributions of corporate morality, support general fairness judgments, and foster trust in the

company, which in turn should increase organizational attractiveness and commitment and decrease counter-

productive workplace behavior.

4.2. Group distinctiveness

People’s need for positive distinctiveness is satisfied when they believe that their group compares favorably with

others along important dimensions (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Corporate activities contribute to positive distinctiveness

in the eyes of employees when they increase the prestige of the organization and help it to stand out relative to others

(Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Tyler, 1999). CSR is one likely source of positive distinctiveness

(e.g., Ellemers et al., 2011; Jones, 2010; cf. Dutton et al., 1994).

CSR activities that provide positive distinctiveness and enhance the firm’s reputation should help the firm attract

and retain talent. A core tenet of social identity theory is that people seek to improve their social identity by moving

to higher status groups when group boundaries are permeable (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). ‘‘People are willing to stay

loyal to their group as long as it can provide them with a positive social identity. When this is not the case, and people

are offered the possibility of changing group membership, they are tempted to do so’’ (Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears,

1999, p. 90). Consistent with this idea, organizational prestige is associated with increased attractiveness of

organizations during recruitment (e.g., Turban & Cable, 2003) and decreased turnover and turnover intentions (e.g.,

Herrbach, Mignonac, & Gatignon, 2004; Riordan et al., 1997; see also Ellemers, 1993). The size of the effect of a

given activity on a firm’s reputation depends in part on the number of people outside of the company who are aware

of it. Therefore, CSR activities that are highly visible to external stakeholders should be particularly effective at

increasing prestige and enhancing employees’ social identity. A wide range of corporate activities, including

philanthropy programs, production of high quality and innovative products, and providing jobs for a large number of

people in an area, may project a positive image of the firm, enhance the firm’s reputation, and increase positive

distinctiveness.

Eli Lilly and Company appears to benefit from the visibility of its CSR activities. The company ranked sixth in

Forbes magazine’s list of America’s Most Generous Companies in 2009 (Smith, 2010), and it consistently appears on

lists of best places to work. Perhaps most interesting about Lilly’s approach to CSR is that it carefully details how the

company’s presence impacts its home state of Indiana (Lilly, 2012). The company’s website lists the number of vendor

contracts it has, the amount the company spends with vendors, the amount employees donate, and the amount of grant

money the Lilly Foundation provides in each county in the state. This level of detail is likely geared toward creating a

positive external image of the company in the area where employees who work at the corporate headquarters live. In

other words, Lilly attempts to leverage its economic impact in the community as a source of CSR. Although economic

impact is not what many people think of first when considering CSR, it is a central feature of many definitions of CSR

(e.g., Carroll, 1979). To the extent that Lilly can influence employees sensemaking processes (cf. Weick, 1995), the

firm’s economic contribution may function much like the Lilly Foundation’s grant program and other discretionary


activities. When the community views a company in a positive light, employees are likely to feel a sense of pride and

be more likely to remain with the company (Dutton et al., 1994).

In summary, a wide range of CSR activities may serve as a source of positive distinctiveness that can help recruit

and maintain employees. Philanthropy is one type of activity that contributes to CSR that receives a lot of press, but

other highly visible aspects of CSR, including product quality and contributing to the economic vitality of a region,

may also capture the attention of a variety of stakeholders, improve firm reputation, and increase organizational

attractiveness.

4.3. Belongingness

Similarities and differences are the building blocks of all groups and categories (Campbell, 1956), and social groups

are no exception (Allport, 1954; Byrne, 1971; Turner, 1987). People feel that they belong to a group when they share

important beliefs and values with group members and the group as a whole (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg & Terry,

2000; Turner, 1987). Values are a central part of organizational culture (Katz & Kahn, 1978; O’Reilly & Chatman,

1986) and perhaps ‘‘the most distinctive property or defining characteristic of a social institution’’ (Rokeach, 1979, p.

51). CSR should affect organizational identification because it can influence the amount of value similarity or

dissimilarity people perceive between themselves and the organization. Values and mission statements can help

communicate what a company’s deems important, but actions speak louder than words. Activities that demonstrate

commitment to specific values, such as philanthropic support for particular causes, environmental stewardship, and

efforts to promote diversity within the company, are likely to have the greatest impact on employees who share those

values.

One important way that the need for belongingness operates differently from the need for distinctiveness is that

belongingness depends on value congruence between an individual and the company, whereas distinctiveness is more

closely tied to general evaluations of how well a company compares to other companies. Employees may see their

company as distinctive because it has a stronger reputation for CSR than others in a given industry. However, a specific

philanthropic activity may or may not affect a particular employee’s sense of belongingness; belongingness depends

on the extent to which the activity resonates with the individual employee’s values. For example, ‘‘cast members’’ at

the Walt Disney Company may take pride in the fact that Disney is admired for CSR, but those who are more

concerned about the environment may feel a greater sense of belongingness based on the company’s major initiative to

reduce its environmental impact (Walt Disney Company, 2008). Likewise, people who value diversity and see it as an

end in itself worth pursuing should feel greater sense of belongingness to a company than those who are more

ambivalent about diversity programs, irrespective of how much the program enhances the firm’s reputation.

Evidence that the company’s values are congruent with an employee’s beliefs should affirm the employee’s sense of

self and increase perceived similarity and fit with the organization. Employees who feel that they truly belong to an

organization should internalize responsibility for its success and be willing to work hard to achieve the organization’s

goals. Therefore, CSR that satisfies belongingness needs and promotes feelings of fit should be positively associated

with in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Brief & Motowidlo, 1986;

Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; cf. Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985).

4.4. Meaning

Perhaps the most exclusive role CSR can serve in the lives of employees is to provide them with a greater sense of

meaning from work. Employees’ needs for safety and security, distinctiveness, and belongingness can be satisfied in a

variety of ways, many of which are unrelated to CSR. Fewer opportunities exist to augment employees’ sense of

purpose at work, and finding meaning may be particularly challenging when the employees’ role and their company’s

core purpose is mundane, regardless of how the company’s mission statement may attempt to describe it. Extra-

organizational CSR activities, especially volunteerism and community outreach programs that provide opportunities

for employees to directly help others, may therefore enhance the meaning employees find in their relationship with

their company (cf., Grant, 2007).

Research on job crafting indicates that the meaning people find in their work can depend on how they construe their

job (e.g., Grant, 2007; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Wrzesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003). A study of a hospital’s

cleaning staff, for example, found that cleaners disliked their job when they viewed the work as unskilled labor and


defined their role narrowly in terms of cleaning; whereas others on the staff liked their job because they viewed it as

skilled work that involved helping patients, visitors, and nurses (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). All of the cleaners

were hired to do the same job, but those who found meaning in it were happier with their job and elected to take on

additional tasks. We propose that CSR can have a similar effect by providing people with opportunities to express their

values, contribute to the community and society at large, and potentially build or at least be a part of a lasting legacy.

By satisfying their need for a meaningful existence, employees should enjoy greater life-satisfaction and increased

emotional well-being. In addition, when employees participate in programs that matter to them, it may strengthen their

relationship with the company and help them rededicate themselves to their own work roles (Grant, 2008; Grant et al.,

2007).

5. Conclusion

‘‘Doing well by doing good’’ is an aphorism sometimes attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Although the etymology

of this specific phrase is uncertain, interest in some form of this general notion has a long and varied history (Avi-

Yonah, 2005; Carroll, 1999). In recent years, buzz about corporate social responsibility has brought this idea back into

the public spotlight; it has been an increasingly frequent topic of conversation in the mass media, the boardroom, the

MBA classroom, and the scholarly literature. Can companies address the needs of society and satisfy their economic

self-interest at the same time? Is this the platitude du jour, a pipe dream, or an enlightened business strategy?

Understanding the effects of CSR on employees represents one relatively unexplored approach to answering

questions about whether and how CSR affects businesses. The paucity of CSR research on employees is surprising

given that CSR often is discussed as a means for firms to maintain positive relations with their stakeholders, and

employees certainly are key stakeholders (e.g., Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984; Wood & Jones, 1995).

That said, existing micro-level theories and research have a great deal to say about how employees are likely to

perceive and respond to CSR. Immediate progress can be achieved through efforts to break down knowledge silos and

bridge the gaps in the literature. One potential barrier that may deter micro-level scholars for entering into the

conversation about CSR is a misperception that CSR is a macro-level construct, but we hope this chapter helps to

dispel that idea.

Our needs-based approach represents one possible way to organize how employees are likely to interpret the wide

range of firm activities that have been included under the banner of CSR in work conducted at the macro level. Our

intent is to provide a general framework that begins to identify and organize the relations between employees’

concerns, company activities, and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, as well as implicate the psychological

processes that link them. Our effort undoubtedly falls short of being comprehensive. Much more work is necessary to

refine each aspect of our approach, correct inaccuracies, and incorporate additional ideas. However, we hope to spark

new interest in CSR from scholars with expertise in all areas of organizational behavior. CSR is now a mainstream

business practice, and it should also have a presence in the mainstream literature on organizational behavior.

Acknowledgement

We thank Art Brief, Barry Staw, and Scott Reynolds for their helpful comments on drafts of this article.

References

Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 93, 751–763.

Aguilera, R., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the s back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social

change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 836–863.

Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In Zedeck, S. (Ed.). APA handbook of industrial and organizational

psychology. Vol. 3 (pp.855–879). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of

Management, 38, 932–968.

Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations.

Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 243–253.

Alderfer, C. (1972). Existence, relatedness & growth. New York, NY: Free Press.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.


Anderson, C. A., & Sedikides, C. (1991). Thinking about people: Contributions of a typological alternative to associationistic and dimensional

models of person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 203–217.

Aristotle. (1908). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 350 BCE).

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of

Management, 34, 325–374.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.

Avi-Yonah, R. (2005). The cyclical transformations of the corporate form: A historical perspective on corporate social responsibility. Delaware

Journal of Corporate Law, 30, 767–818.

Backhaus, K. B., Stone, B. A., & Heiner, K. (2002). Exploring the relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness.

Business & Society, 41, 292–318.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.

Barber, A. (1998). Recruiting employees. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bartel, C. A. (2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of community outreach on members’ organizational identity and

identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 379–413.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.

Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2009). In the mind of the perceiver: Psychological implications of moral conviction. In B. H. Ross (Series Ed.) D. M.

Bartels, C. W. Bauman, L. J. Skitka, & D. L. Medin (Vol. Eds.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 50. Moral judgment and decision

making (pp. 339–362). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The handbook of positive

psychology (pp. 608–618). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Behling, O., Labovitz, G., & Gainer, M. (1968). College recruiting: A theoretical basis. Personnel Journal, 47, 13–19.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California

Management Review, 47(Fall), 9–25.

Birnbaum, M. H. (1973). Morality judgment: Test of an averaging model with differential weights. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 99, 395–

399.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a ‘‘fair’’ process. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 29, 747–758.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Booz Allen Hamilton. (2012). Spirit of service. Retrieved from: http://www.boozallen.com/about/corporate-citizenship/spirit-of-service

Bradley, J. C., Brief, A. P., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). The ‘‘good’’ corporation. In D. B. Smith (Ed.), The people make the place: Dynamic linkages

between individuals and organizations (pp. 175–223). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brambilla, M., Rusconi, P., Sacchi, S., & Cherubini, P. (2011). Looking for honesty: The primary role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in

information gathering. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 135–143.

Brammer, S. J., Millington, A. I., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Is philanthropy strategic? An analysis of the management of charitable giving in large UK

companies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 234–245.

Breaugh, J. A. (1992). Recruitment: Science and practice. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.

Brief, A. P., Konovsky, M. A., George, J., Goodwin, R., & Link, K. (1995). Inferring the meaning of work from the effects of unemployment. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 693–711.

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 11, 710–725.

Brief, A. P., & Nord, W. R. (1990). Work and meaning: Definitions and interpretations. In A. P. Brief & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Meanings of occupational

work (pp. 1–19). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Briscoe, M. E., Woodyard, H. D., & Shaw, M. E. (1967). Personality impression change as a function of the favorableness of first impressions.

Journal of Personality, 35, 343–357.

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing,

61, 68–84.

Burt, R., & Knez, M. (1996). Third-party gossip and trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and

research (pp. 68–89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Business Roundtable. (1988). Corporate ethics: A prime business asset. New York, NY: The Business Roundtable.

Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Campbell, D. T. (1956). Enhancement of contrast as composite habit. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 350–355.

Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and

job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 972–992.

Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of definitional construct. Business and Society, 38, 268–295.

Cascio, W. F. (2006). Decency means more than ‘‘always low prices’’: A comparison of Costco to Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club. Academy of Management

Perspectives, 20, 26–37.

Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S. M., & Michaels, E. G., III (1998). The war for talent. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3,

44–57.

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366–375.

Coca-Cola Company. (2010/2011). Sustainability report. Retrieved from: http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/sustainabilityreport/index.html

Coleman-Lochner, L. (2006, March, 4). Costco service key to outpacing rival Sam’s Club. The Denver Post, 1C, 8C.

http://www.boozallen.com/about/corporate-citizenship/spirit-of-service

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/sustainabilityreport/index.html


Conlon, D. E., Meyer, C. J., & Nowakowsky, J. M. (2005). How does organizational justice affect performance, withdrawal and counterproductive

behavior? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 301–327). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Creed, W. E. D., & Miles, R. E. (1996). Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies and

the opportunity costs of controls. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 16–38).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crocker, J., Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Schematic bases of belief change. In R. Eiser (Ed.), Attitudinal judgment (pp. 197–227). New York,

NY: Springer-Verlag.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments and their outcomes in organizations. In Staw,

B. M., & Brief, A. P. Eds. Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 31 (pp.73–98). New York, NY: Elsevier.Costco Wholesale Corporation. (2011). Annual report. Retrieved from: http://www.annualreports.com/Company/1398

Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R., & Roper, S. (2003). Corporate reputation and competitiveness. London, UK: Routledge.

Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2, 70–76.

Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312–322.

Deci, E. L. (1992). On the nature and functions of motivation theories. Psychological Science, 3, 167–171.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological

Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265–279.

Diener, E., Ng, W., Harter, J., & Arora, R. (2010). Wealth and happiness across the world: Material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas

psychosocial prosperity predicts positive feeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 52–61.

Diener, E., Ng, W., & Tov, W. (2008). Balance in life and declining marginal utility of diverse resources. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 3, 277–

291.

Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1999). Commitment and intergroup behaviour. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity:

Context, commitment, content (pp. 84–106). Oxford, England: Blackwell Science.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management

Review, 20, 65–91.

Dowling, G. R. (2001). Creating corporate reputations: Identity, image and performance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: The role of image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of

Management Journal, 34, 517–554.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organization images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–

263.

Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. (2010). Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building

of social resources. Academy of Management Review, 35, 265–293.

Easterbrook, F. H., & Fischel, D. R. (1996). The economic structure of corporate law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Letting people off the hook: When do good deeds excuse transgressions? Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 36, 1618–1634.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. M., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Effects of perceived organizational support on employee diligence, innovation, and

commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 51–59.

Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 27–57.

Ellemers, N., Kingma, L., van de Burgt, J., & Barreto, M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as a source of organizational morality, employee

commitment and satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Moral Psychology, 1, 97–124.

Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114, 864–886.

Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.

Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight inperson perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social


Fiske, S. T. (2010). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. Hobeken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11,

77–83.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from

the perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Fombrun, C., Gardberg, N. A., & Barnett, M. L. (2000). Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Business

and Society Review, 105, 85–106.

Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258.

Foss, N. J. (2011). Why micro-foundations for resource-based theory are needed and what they may look like. Journal of Management, 37, 1413–

1428.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373.

Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man’s search for meaning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Frederick, W. C. (1960). The growing concern over business responsibility. California Management Review, 2, 54–61.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.

Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409–421.

http://www.annualreports.com/Company/1398


Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase profits. New York Times Magazine, 32–33, 122–126.

Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to choose: A personal statement. New York, NY: Avon Books.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R. T., & Fehr, E. (2005). Moral sentiments and material interests: The foundations of cooperation in economic life.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of

Management Review, 30, 777–799.

Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical

test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 425–445.

Goldberg, A. B., & Ritter, B. (2006). Costco CEO finds pro-worker means profitability. ABC News 20/20. Retrieved from www.abcnews.go.com/

2020/Business/story?id=1362779

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social


Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393–417.

Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effect, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 93, 108–124.

Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of

contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 53–67.

Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1034–1046.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden costs of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,

561–568.

Greenhouse, S. (2005, July 17). How Costco became the anti-Wal-Mart. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/

business/yourmoney/17costco.html

Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business &

Society, 39, 254–280.

Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of

incomparable research. Business and Society, 36, 5–31.

Guthrie, S. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. New York, NY: Oxford.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 16, 250–279.

Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004, Fall). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 55–66.

Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E., & Hom, H. (2003). Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

33, 1–36.

Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work

group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96–107.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Herrbach, O., Mignonac, K., & Gatignon, A. (2004). Exploring the role of perceived external prestige in managers’ turnover intentions. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 1390–1407.

Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European

Review of Social Psychology, 11, 223–255.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1993). Towards a single-process uncertainty-reduction model of social motivation in groups. In M. A. Hogg & D.

Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 173–190). London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25,

121–140.

Homans, G. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.

Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas

(Eds.), Team decision-making effectiveness in organizations (pp. 204–261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, T. M. (1980). Corporate social responsibility: Revisited, redefined. California Management Review, 22(2), 59–67.

Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437.

Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to

understand employee responses to a volunteerism program. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 857–878.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In Advances in experimental social

psychology. 2 (pp.219–266). New York, NY: Academic Press.Judd, C., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V., & Kashima, Y. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between

judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 899–913.

Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 16489–16493.

Kanouse, D. E., & Hanson, L. R., Jr. (1972). Negativity in evaluations. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B.

Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 47–62). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html


Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.),

Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 1–26). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1985). Public opinion and political action. In Lindzey, G., & Aronson, E. Eds. Handbook of social psychology.

(pp.659–741). .

King, B. G., Felin, T., & Whetten, D. A. (2010). Finding the organization in organizational theory: A meta-theory of the organization as a social actor.

Organization Science, 21, 290–305.

Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis.

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 203–217.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development. Volume II. The psychology of moral development. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Kotter, J. P. (1973). The psychological contract. California Management Review, 15, 91–99.

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.

Kramer, R. M., & Lewicki, R. J. (2010). Repairing and enhancing trust: approaches to reducing organizational trust deficits. Academy of

Management Annals, 4, 245–277.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualization, measurement and implications. Personnel Psychology,

49, 1–49.

Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national

study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 1–18.

Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37, 300–326.

Lawler, E. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leach, C., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation

of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234–249.

Leavitt, T. (1958). The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 36(September–October), 41–50.

Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370–390.

Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-

supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68, 16–32.

Lilly. (2012). Impact on Indiana. Retrieved from: http://www.lilly.com/about/key-facts/Pages/impact-on-indiana.aspx

Lin, C., Lyau, N., Tsai, Y., Chen, W., & Chiu, C. (2010). Modeling corporate citizenship and its relationship with organizational citizenship

behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 357–372.

Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano

(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. In Staw, B. M., & Kramer, R. M.

Eds. Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 24 (pp.181–223). Boston, MA: Elsevier.Lindskold, S. (1978). Trust development, the GRIT proposal, and the effects of conciliatory acts on conflict and cooperation. Psychology Bulletin,

85, 772–793.

Locke, E. A., McClear, K., & Knight, D. (1996). Self-esteem at work. International Review of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 11, 1–32.

Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. (2002). Business citizenship: From domestic to global level of analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 155–187.

Luce, R. A., Barber, A. E., & Hillman, A. J. (2001). Good deeds and misdeeds: A mediated model of the effect of corporate social performance on

organizational attractiveness. Business and Society, 40, 397–415.

Lydon, J. E., Jamieson, D. W., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). Interpersonal similarity and the social and intellectual dimensions of first impressions. Social

Cognition, 6, 269–286.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of Academy of Marketing

Science, 32, 3–19.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2001). People and profits? The search for a link between a company’s social and financial performance Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48,

268–305.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment.

Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.

Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York, NY: The Viking Press.

McAdams, D. P., Hoffman, B. K., Mansfield, E. D., & Day, R. (1996). Themes of agency and communion in significant autobiographical scenes.

Journal of Personality, 64, 339–377.

McClelland, D. C. (1965). Achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 392–398.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and society. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 31, 854–872.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26,

117–127.

http://www.lilly.com/about/key-facts/Pages/impact-on-indiana.aspx


Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Muniz, A. M., Jr., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 412–432.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Newcomb, T. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Newcomb, T. (1978). The acquaintance process: Looking mainly backward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1075–1083.

Nord, W. R., Brief, A. P., Atieh, J. M., & Doherty, E. M. (1988). Work values and the conduct of organizational behavior. In Staw, B. M., &

Cummings, L. L. Eds. Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 10 (pp.1–42). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Onorato, R. S., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Fluidity in the self-concept: The shift from personal to social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology,

34, 257–278.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. P. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents and consequences. London,

UK: Sage Publications.

O’Reilly, C., III, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and

internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.

O’Reilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-

organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516.

Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business & Society, 40, 369–396.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. R. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403–441.

Paine, L. S. (2003). Value shift: Why companies must merge social and financial imperatives to achieve superior performance. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Parsons, T., & Bales, R. (1955). Family, socialization and interaction processes. Glencoe, Scotland: Free Press.

Peeters, G. (1983). Relational and information patterns in social cognition. In Doise, W., & Moscovici, S. Eds. Current issues in European social

psychology. Vol. 1 (pp.201–231). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Peloza, J. (2009). The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 35,

1518–1541.

Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 117–135.

Peterson, D. K. (2004). The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organizational commitment. Business and Society, 43,

269–319.

Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. In Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. Eds. Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 5 (pp.299–

357). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Pilisuk, M., & Skolnick, P. (1968). Inducing trust: A test of the Osgood Proposal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 121–133.

Pizarro, D. A., & Tannenbaum, D. (2012). Bringing character back: How the motivation to evaluate character influences judgments of moral blame.

In P. Shaver & M. Mikulincer (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 91–108). New York, NY: APA

Books.

Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-Andersson, & R. Suddaby

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 276–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),

Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 308–327). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Quinn, D. P., & Jones, T. (1995). An agent morality view of business policy. Academy of Management Review, 20, 22–42.

Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Reeder, G. D. (1985). Implicit relations between dispositions and behaviors: Effects on dispositional attribution. In J. H. Harvey & G. Weary (Eds.),

Attribution: Basic issues and applications (pp. 87–116). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979). Aschematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86, 61–79.

Reeder, G. D., & Coovert, M. D. (1986). Revising an impression of morality. Social Cognition, 4, 1–17.

Reeder, G. D., & Spores, J. M. (1983). The attribution of morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 736–745.

Riordan, C. M., Gatewood, R. D., & Bill, J. B. (1997). Corporate image: Employee reactions and implications for managing corporate social

performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 401–412.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574–599.

Rodrigo, P., & Arenas, D. (2008). Do employees care about CSR programs? A typology of employee according to their attitudes. Journal of Business

Ethics, 83, 265–283.

Rogers, C. (1959). A theory of therapy personality and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.),

Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 3. Formulations of the person and the social context. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. London, UK: Constable.

Rokeach, M. (1979). From individual to institutional values: With special reference to the values of science. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding

human values (pp. 47–70). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C., & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multi-dimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 283–294.

Rosenberg, S., & Sedlak, A. (1972). Structural representations of implicit personality theory. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.). Advances in experimental social

psychology. Vol. 6 (pp.235–297). New York, NY: Academic Press.


Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. In Brief, A. P., & Staw, B. M.

Eds. Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 30 (pp.91–127). New York, NY: Elsevier.Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rowley, T., & Berman, S. (2000). A brand new brand of CSP. Business & Society, 39, 397–418.

Rupp, D., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice

framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 537–543.

Rupp, D. E. (2011). An employee-centered model of organizational justice and social responsibility. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 72–94.

Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci

organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946.

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames & R. E.

Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: The classroom milieu (pp. 13–51). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice and post-hire consequences: A call for new research directions. In Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. M.

Eds. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Vol. 2 (pp.399–444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.

Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true and to thine own

self be better. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 29 (pp.209–296). New York, NY: Academic Press.Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal

of Marketing Research, 38, 225–243.

Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 158–166.

Shapiro, N. (2004, December 15). Company for the people. Seattle Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.seattleweekly.com/2004-12-15/news/

company-for-the-people/

Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). The ‘‘big three’’ of morality (autonomy community, and divinity), and the ‘‘big

three’’ explanations of suffering. In A. Brand & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health. New York, NY: Routledge.

Sirgy, M. J., & Wu, J. (2009). The pleasant life, the engaged life, and the meaningful lie: What about the balanced life? Journal of Happiness Studies,

10, 183–196.

Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. (2005). Moral conviction: Another determinant of attitude strength, or something more? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 895–917.

Smith, A. (1976). The theory of moral sentiments. In D. D. Raphael and A. L. Mactie (Eds.), Liberty Classics. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press

(original work published 1759).

Smith, A. (1909). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. In C. J. Bullock (Ed.), Harvard Classics Vol 10. New York, NY: P. F.

Collier & Son (original work published 1776).

Smith, C. (1994). The new corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 72, 105–116.

Smith, J. (2010, October, 28). America’s most generous companies. Forbes. Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/28/most-generous-

companies-leadership-corporate-citizenship-philanthropy.html

Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 45, 52–76.

Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected

failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 382–388.

Solomon, L. (1960). The influence of some types of power relationships and game strategies upon the development of interpersonal trust. Journal of

Abnormal Social Psychology, 61, 223–230.

Spence, A. M. (1974). Market signaling: Informational transfer in hiring and related screening processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Staw, B. M. (1991). Dressing up like an organization: When psychological theories can explain organizational action. Journal of Management, 7,

805–819.

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.). Advances in experimental social

psychology. Vol. 21 (pp.261–302). New York, NY: Academic Press.Sternberg, E. (1996). Stakeholder theory exposed. Corporate Governance Quarterly, 2, 4–18.

Sternberg, E. (2000). Just business: Business ethics in action (2nd edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Stone, C. D. (1975). Where the law ends. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Swaen, V., & Maignan, I. (2003). Organizational citizenship and corporate citizenship: Two constructs one research theme? In S. L. True & L. Pelton

(Eds.), Business rites writs and responsibilities: Readings on ethics and social impact management (pp. 105–130). Kennesaw, Georgia:

Kennesaw State University Press.

Swanson, D. L. (1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review,

20, 43–64.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of

intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Tannenbaum, D., Uhlmann, E. L., & Diermeier, D. (2011). Moral signals, public outrage, and immaterial harms. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 47, 1249–1254.

Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 354–365.

Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Academy of Management Annals,

2, 545–607.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2004-12-15/news/company-for-the-people/

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2004-12-15/news/company-for-the-people/

http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/28/most-generous-companies-leadership-corporate-citizenship-philanthropy.html

http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/28/most-generous-companies-leadership-corporate-citizenship-philanthropy.html


Timberland. (2012). Timberland responsibility. Retrieved from: http://responsibility.timberland.com/service/?story=1

Trafimow, D., & Trafimow, S. (1999). Mapping imperfect and perfect duties on to hierarchically and partially restrictive trait dimensions. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 686–695.

Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. O. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads.

Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402–423.

Turban, D. B., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 733–751.

Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of

Management Journal, 40, 658–672.

Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. C. (1984). Social identification and psychological group formation. In Tajfel, H. (Ed.). The social dimension: European developments in

social psychology. Vol. 2 (pp.518–538). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the

social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 43–67). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (Eds.). (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization

theory. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 20, 454–463.

Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations. In Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. Eds. Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 21

(pp.201–246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Ullmann, A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationship among social performance, social disclosure, and economic

performance. Academy of Management Review, 10, 540–577.

United Nations Volunteers. (2011). State of the world’s volunteerism report. Retrieved from http://www.unv.org/fileadmin/docdb/pdf/2011/SWVR/

English/SWVR2011_full.pdf

Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Professional ethical standards, corporate social responsibility, and the perceived role of ethics and

responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 657–666.

van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.). Advances in experimental

social psychology. Vol. 34 (pp.1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The

psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034–1046.

van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). The psychology of procedural justice and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of

fairness heuristic theory. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Vol. II. From theory to practice (pp. 49–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum & Associates.

Waddock, S. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 109, 5–42.

Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303–319.

Wahba, M. A., & Birdwell, L. G. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational behavior and

human performance, 15, 212–240.

Walt Disney Company. (2008). Corporate responsibility report. Retrieved from: http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/citizenship/report-archive

Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Managing human resources. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 4, 758–769.

Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J.-H., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Making sense by making sentient: Effectance

motivation increases anthropomorphism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 410–435.

Weber, J. M., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Normal acts of irrational trust: Motivated attributions and the trust development process. In

Staw, B. M., & Kramer, R. M. Eds. Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 26 (pp.75–102). New York, NY: Elsevier.Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In W.

Grove & D. Ciccetti (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul Everett Meehl (pp. 89–113). Minneapolis, MN:

University of Minnesota Press.

Wojciszke, B. (1994). Multiple meanings of behavior: Construing actions in terms of competence and morality. Journal of Personality and Social


Wojciszke, B. (2005). Morality and competence in person and self perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 155–188.

Wojciszke, B., & Abele, A. E. (2008). The primacy of communion over agency and its reversals in evaluations. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 38, 1139–1147.

Wojciszke, B., Abele, A. E., & Baryla, W. (2009). Two dimensions of interpersonal attitudes: Liking depends on communion, respect depends on

agency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 973–990.

Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1251–1263.

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.

Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 50–84.

Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research in corporate social performance.

International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 229–267.

http://responsibility.timberland.com/service/?story=1

http://www.unv.org/fileadmin/docdb/pdf/2011/SWVR/English/SWVR2011_full.pdf

http://www.unv.org/fileadmin/docdb/pdf/2011/SWVR/English/SWVR2011_full.pdf

http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/citizenship/report-archive


Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding positive meaning in work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational

scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review,

26, 179–201.

Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. In Staw, B., & Kramer, R. Eds. Research in

organizational behavior. Vol. 25 (pp.135–193). San Francisco, CA: Interscience.Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure 1840-1920. In Staw, B. M., & Cummings, L. L. Eds. Research

in organizational behavior. Vol. 8 (pp.53–111). New York, NY: Elsevier.

Documents

Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee …102]Corporate social... · Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction Christopher W. Baumana,*,